Net Neutrality: An Emergency, Whether You Understand It or Not

It sounds like a dystopian fiction version of the future, but it is closer than most of us would care to realize…

Imagine if your power company could decide that they would only provide power for a certain brand of appliances and that they could make that decision because a particular appliance company paid them for it.  Your choice would be to go without those appliances or buy the brand you have been effectively directed to buy.  In the United States, shopping for a new power company is not even an option.

Now, imagine your government has the right to decide that one delivery company did not have to obey the speed limits while all others would be required to adhere to a 20 m.p.h. speed limit at all times.  Neither you nor those other companies can decide to use different roads.  You are stuck with the slower delivery service of the company of your choosing, or you can pick the one that does not have to follow the same rules as everybody else.  Again, they have probably paid for that ability.

If this seems like  an extreme, crazy, unrealistic, alarmist exaggeration of a future where citizens and consumers are deprived of the basic economic choices that we currently make every day, then you are wrong.  While my analogies are not perfect, the future on our doorstep is actually much more terrifying. 

Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and human embodiment of “regulatory capture,” is proposing the end of rules guaranteeing what is called “Net Neutrality.”  Setting aside for the moment all of the disingenuous and downright dishonest gamesmanship that Pai’s FCC has engaged in over the public commenting on Net Neutrality and the supposed DDoS attacks by proponents of Net Neutrality against the commenting process, Pai’s proposal seems poised to have significant and detrimental effects on American consumers and the American democracy.

Pai is proposing allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to prioritize web traffic as they see fit.  That means they would be able to slow down data to and from particular websites or web services to the point where your ISP could essentially dictate your internet usage.  That means they could decide:  where you shop, what you buy, what video(s) you watch, where you watch it, who you talk to, what games you play, how you play them, on what platform you play them, where you get your news, where you look for jobs, and what devices you use to access the internet.

But wait! There is more.

Because of the increasing consolidation of communications and related industries, there is a good chance that your ISP is also the provider of your cable or satellite TV package.  There would be nothing to stop, for example AT&T (providers of UVerse and Direct TV) of making it basically impossible for cord-cutters to access Netflix or Hulu.  Same is true for Comcast, owners of NBC, and for Verizon, who provide TV through their FIOS service.  In other words, these companies will be able to use their de facto monopolies to make it impossible for competition to exist.

The this anti-competition problem extends beyond the communication and entertainment industries though.  Many small businesses and start up companies rely on their internet presence for survival.  These types of businesses stand no chance in an economy where larger competitors can pay to cripple their web traffic and cut them off at the knees before they get started.

The only people who benefit from the eradication of Net Neutrality are the ISPs.  We are forced to rely select ISPs for nearly all aspects of our daily lives.  In terms of its importance in modern America, it is on the same level as power, water, and roads.  Without Net Neutrality, the internet essentially becomes the private property of those ISPs, private property that they can sell off, rent out, evict people or entities from, and censor at will.  Ajit Pai wants YOUR access to information to be determined by the highest bidder, be it a company looking to sell you something or an interest or political action group looking to influence politics. 

The level of greed that Pai wants to empower is dangerous to the fundamental stability of American democracy and the American free press, two things already increasingly under attack.  There are no Republicans or Democrats on this issue.  Whether you get your news from Occupy Democrats, InfoWars, MSNBC, Fox News or The Onion, you need to care about this.  This is an America issue.  No american should stand for this.  No american should be quiet about this.  Every american should be scared and angry as hell about this.  Most importantly, no american should be idle about this.

Call your representatives and senators.  Call the FCC.  Call your newspaper.  Talk to anybody who will listen.  Educate yourself.  Find a way to help fight.

Joe Arpaio: Disgrace, Racist, Criminal

I have been looking for things to say about the pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from his federal conviction for criminal contempt of court.  I want to rail about how disgusting his actions were, how antagonistic not only the decision to pardon him was but the timing of it as well.

I cannot imagine how marginalized his victims feel seeing their tormentor pardoned without a penalty.  The high of seeing the man who seemed bulletproof for so long finally be held accountable only to have that accountability swept away like it was nothing must be devastating.  I know that, but I do not feel it like his victims do.

Many others have done a fine job of detailing the deplorable behavior and criminal acts by this supposed agent of the law.  I cannot add to the conversation there, but I cannot stay silent.

Arpaio, between his conviction and pardon, attempted to scare his racist and / or ignorant audience by telling them that if the big bad government can come after an innocent law man doing his job (paraphrasing his words), then they can come after “anybody.” My response to his contention is this: You’re damned right, and that is as it should be!

Anybody who systematically violates the rights of citizens and doze so largely on the basis of race and in the name of electoral politics should absolutely expect the government to respond with righteous justice and accountability.  Nobody should expect that they will be able to hide and cower behind a badge or behind the oversized tie of an unqualified and equally cynical (and / or racist) executive trying to distract from his own self-inflicted political wounds and controversies.

Lee v. Washington (v. Lee)

One of the recent arguments in defense of the preservation of Confederate war monuments is the laughable claim that there is no difference between Robert E. Lee and George Washington.  One of the people doing this is Donald Trump’s lawyer, who has taken time away from defending his client against unrelated allegations to make this argument.  It is an act that is indicative of the fact that Donald Trump is not merely accidentally defending white nationalism, and also the lengths to which Trump and his team will go to distract from his Russian problem.

But why is the comparison so pathetically misguided?  The argument amounts to saying that both men were slave owners who led rebellions against their former nations of allegiance.  This is true so far as it goes, but its omissions render it disingenuous at best.

First, Washington is and was not a traitor to this nation.  He did not betray the United States.  He helped found it.  Britain can rightfully consider him a traitor to them, but he is no traitor to the United States of America.  Additionally, he remains the only sitting president to lead the army into battle when he led troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Lee did betray the United States.  He led an armed rebellion against the United States.  Even if the Union had lost, Lee would still have been a traitor to the United States even as he would have been a Confederate Washington.  So, this isn’t merely a case of history being written by the victors.

Second, while the causes for the American Revolution and the American Civil War are complicated, their motivations are less so.  The American Revolution was largely motivated by the colonies / states not being represented in the government that presided over them.  This was an active and ongoing problem that resulted in acts, taxes and legislation aimed at enriching the British Empire at the expense of the colonies that drove it.

On the other hand, the American Civil War was motivated by the desire to protect the rights of white men to own black men.  This is the “state’s right” that the war was fought over.  The war was started because southern traitors did not like the result of a presidential election, even though the racist ⅗ compromise gave them a disproportionate vote, and even though the winner of the election indicated he did not intend to end the barbaric practice of slavery.  This means that their issue was almost entirely speculative.

They revolted because a system that was rigged in their favor was not rigged enough in their favor and did not play out exactly as they wanted.  This revolt of spoiled racists and sore losers is the rebellion that Robert E. Lee led.

Washington led a revolt of people not represented in their government.  He did not lead a rebellion of people already overrepresented in their government and were just mad because they did not get their way.

By all means, remember Gen. Lee. Remember all the men and women who fought and died for the Confederacy.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but we cannot learn from something that we do not remember.  There is a difference between remembering and idealizing though, and these monuments and memorials idealize people who were traitors to the United States in the name of white supremacy.  I sincerely doubt that many of these monuments, if any, provide any meaningful context for the events and people they memorialize.  Those interested in commemorating the Confederacy during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, when a large number of these memorials were put up, were more interested in holding back the tide of racial equality.

We must learn from our remembrance and study of the American Civil War and the people who fought on both sides, and that is not what these memorials are for.  I am not aware of any memorials portray Confederate leaders as well-meaning, but flawed and tragic figures simply on the wrong side of justice and history.  While I personally find most of the leadership of the Confederacy to be motivated by more sinister intent than that, it is at least an acceptable view in that it acknowledges that they were absolutely wrong, regardless of intent.

Tempting as it may be to take the view, “Washington, good; Lee, bad,” things are rarely that simple.  I was looking for the best way to illustrate that point when I learned this week that the opposition to Confederate war memorials had a very early and surprising member: Robert E. Lee.

When approached about monuments to the Confederate war effort, Lee wrote on at least two occasions that such symbols would hold the South back and would “keep open the sores of war.”  He thought it “wiser” to “obliterate the symbols of civil strife.”

So, there we have it.  Even the man who led the military rebellion against the United States recognized that monuments to his own efforts, the efforts he risked his life and the lives of his brothers in arms, were harmful to the United States and to the South specifically.  It’s unfortunate that the people who want to defend the veneration of Gen. Lee and his fellow Confederate traitors cannot actually learn the hard lessons he specifically wanted us to learn.

Name and Shame is Fair Game

I find it funny that Nazi, Klan members, Alt-Right and other bigots being identified, named and shamed after their participation in the torch-lit march in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend is drawing any type of negative backlash.

Freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences, no matter how much people whine about the consequences of their speech.  Freedom of speech means that you can say something ignorant and bigoted without the government stopping you.  It also means that I can respond by calling your statement ignorant and bigoted.  I can even share my opinion that you are an ignorant bigot.  I can shout to anybody who will listen that you have made ignorant, bigoted statements and that I think you are an ignorant bigot.

Unless I’m saying something that qualifies as slander or libel (which cannot be the case if what I’m saying is true or a reasonably and honestly held opinion), or there is some actual crime committed along the way, I can say what I want about your hateful, divisive rhetoric.  How others respond to that is up to them as well.  If your parents, university, peer groups, or others do not want to associate with you becuase they learn something true about you, that is your problem.

My issue with people taking offense or otherwise claiming that there is something wrong with naming and shaming the people involved in the Unite the Right (Unite the Reich, is probably a more appropriate name) or other similar events is this:  If your beliefs are such that you do not want the world to know about them, you need to reexamine your beliefs.

People are often more willing to espouse their white nationalist or other racist beliefs than they were several years ago.  While they are doing this, many of them seem to want to hide behind the perceived anonymity that either large crowds or the internet provide to them.  They are either too ashamed or too cowardly to show their views openly and without the perceived protection of anonymity.

The United States is a democracy whose people care deeply about free speech.  Generally speaking, this is not a country where people need to worry about getting killed just for their beliefs. In a country such as this, any belief worth having is worth having openly, freely and proudly.  If you have beliefs that you cannot share in a society such as this, even unpopular ones, then your beliefs are the problem.

These people are embarrassed or ashamed.  They should be embarassed and ashamed.  They should feel every ounce of social pressure available exerted upon them.  They should understand that their selfish, 19th century approach to race relations is not what the vast majority of Americans want it to be.  They need to see that, to the extent they are being marginalized, they are marginalizing themselves.

They need to understand that like it or not, Americans are white, brown, black, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and that they can either stand with their fellow Americans, or be run over by the progress that is made when people of diverse backgrounds and upbringings work together to build and further one of the most diverse, dynamic, resilient and powerful societies in the history of the world.

I hear the counter-argument though.  “Look at what happened to that guy at Google.  He got fired for sharing his beliefs just because they were not part of the liberal social justice warrior talking points.”  “We have to march on Google to stand up for ourselves.”

That man, who I am not going to name here, did not get fired for sharing his beliefs.  That man attacked the abilities of females in general to do certain kinds of work in the tech field.  He lumped them together based upon nothing but their gender and pseudo-science.  That man did not get fired for having objectionable beliefs.  He got fired for disrespecting his coworkers and his bosses, and for damaging the image of one of the largest, most visible, and powerful tech companies in the world.  He did not get fired for trying to start a discussion, he got fired for trying to start a fight.  He was not targeted for his beliefs, but for his actions that damaged the company.

At its core, the problem with these Alt-Right activists is that their real goal is to start a fight.

I have no issue with the fact that pictures are going around naming, shaming and identifying the people who took part in the deplorable rally to save the monument to an American traitor.  If that crosses over to harassment, doxing or similar behavior, I do have a problem with that and so should you. I do not have a problem with families, friends, communities and groups vocally and publicly disavowing these people and their hateful, divisive ideas.

Most people clearly do not want to be associated with this movement, as evidenced by most of the responses to the rally, including those from the Detroit Red Wings and Tiki Brand.  Reputation is important, and most people, including many of these white nationalist, recognize that association with white nationalism and its similar movements are toxic to reputations.  That is why people want to disavow any connections to them and why many of its own members want to hide in the proverbial shadows.

However, if you are going to bring this filth out into public and march in support of racial hostility, you do not get to hide.  You should not get to hide.  You do not get to drag down the public discourse of this nation and then sit back without any consequences.  You made your filthy bed, now you get to lie in it.  If your acting upon your hate costs you friends, family, reputation or the respect of others, or any of the other things you can lose when you lose those things, that is entirely your fault and your problem.  If you do not like it, have the shame you ought and keep your hate to yourself.  Do not burden the rest of us with your insecurities.

Republicans Were "Waiting," but Clearly Not Working

Donald Trump said recently that Republicans have been "waiting for seven years" to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  If I may be sol bold as to offer advise to Donald Trump, isn't the fact that they have been waiting for seven years exactly the problem?  Other than the dozens of symbolic votes to repeal the ACA and screaming about how important it is to repeal the law, they have done nothing but wait.

When they could have been listening to their constituents about their policy concerns, they waited.

When they could have been writing their own bill to repair or replace the ACA, they were taking symbolic votes.

When they could have been looking for solutions to the legitimate policy concerns with the ACA, they were scheming to win elections.

Now their decisions have come back to demonstrate just how disingenuous their words and actions have been since the very start of this debate.  This was never about policy for them.  This was about a bunch of partisan hacks scoring cheap electoral points off of a complicated issue that they all too willingly oversimplified, and sometimes just flat-out lied about to confuse and mislead the masses.  (Remember "Death Panels?)

They lied about what the ACA would do.  They lied (and continue to lie) about what it is doing.  They lied about the process used to pass the law and they lied about the role they paid in obstructing the improvement, passage and implementation of the ACA at all costs.

In what is possibly the most long-standing and disgusting of Republican lies about the ACA, they lied about having a better plan.  They lied about having ANY plan to replace the ACA.  For seven years, four election cycles, they have been proclaiming that "Obamacare" was killing the country and "repeal and replace" was at or near the top of their priority list.

Unfortunately for the country, the people who voted for these Republicans and the people who are most vulnerable to the fluctuation of the insurance market, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are both incompetent and uninterested in governing as compared with winning elections.  In the time they had to ready themselves for when they would control the Congress and the White House, a competent congressional leadership team could have had a plan.  They could have had backup plans.  They could have had contingencies for how to proceed with a small versus a large legislative majority.  They could have even come up with a plan for reform in the event that the next president was a Democrat.  They had time to make plans based upon the the real world implementation and results of the ACA and the fixes that real world application showed it needed.

THEY HAD NOTHING.

Despite the pathetic and unintentionally ironic victory celebration Donald Trump held in the White House Rose Garden after the House passed its "bill," he and his Republican allies could not have shown themselves to be more oblivious to the real work needed if they had a "Mission Accomplished" banner as their back drop.

With years to prepare, they got caught with their pants down.  With years to prepare and in near total control of the federal government, they had nothing.  That glorious display of incompetence has nothing to do with Democrats.  It only marginally has anything to do with Donald Trump.  Sure, he could have displayed some leadership and tried to right the ship, but the "deal-maker" was not willing or able to do anything except say "pass something," and then try to strong-arm some of the Republicans who saw what a disaster their efforts were shaping up to be.

Donald Trump and the Republicans had a historic opportunity to pick up where the ACA fell short and help move it toward making sure all Americans have access to healthcare that they can actually afford.  The signs along the way indicated they were not serious about doing so.  When they had a chance to prove the doubters wrong, they proved they were nothing more than the disingenuous political hacks that so many thought they were.

So, when Donald Trump says it was "always the plan" to let the ACA die on its own, do not believe him.  It is just another example of Donald Trump ignoring facts he does not like because his ego cannot handle the idea that he might not be the best, smartest and winningest person ever.  To the extent he plans to let it fail or, more likely, push it to fail, the blood for the deaths that will result is on his hands and the hands of his colleagues.

What the Democrats should be doing now, and what the Republicans should do next time, is learn from the stunning incompetence that the Republican party displayed during (at least) the entirety of the Obama administration.  That means not just complaining and using "the other side is in charge" as an excuse for not actually DOING anything.  It means working on real policy solutions to problems.  It means supporting a good idea regardless of who proposes it.  Regardless of which side is in power, it means listening and compromising for the greater good.  It does not mean theatrical temper tantrums, moving the goalposts and lying to the American people.

The ACA can and needs to be improved.  However, anybody who thought that Republicans had the collective competence, leadership, integrity and courage to actually do it now needs to realize that they were being lied to.  The Republicans, for seven years, were "waiting" (and campaigning) when they should have been working.  We do no need more people like that in elected office.  We need them gone.

I'm Just Going to Say It...

I hate Donald Trump.  It is not enough to say I disagree with him, or that I do not respect him as a leader or even as a man.  I hate him.

I do not say that lightly.  As I have gotten older, I try very hard to avoid using the word “hate,” because it is overused to the point of being nearly meaningless.  It also never has a positive influence on a course of events.  That’s part of what my problem is with the political tide that has brought him to power.  Hate is not something I want to teach my children to embrace.  I am well aware of Dr. King’s philosophy that hate cannot drive out hate, that only love can.  I agree.

That said, I reiterate that I hate Donald Trump.  I do not just hate what he stands for (today).  I do not hate most of the people who voted for him.  It is not worth belaboring the point with specifics, but I hate him as a person for what he does and the way he treats people.  I’m human.  I cannot help the way I feel, and I cannot say that I am proud of hating anybody, but I can help the way I respond to it.

So, when I say “I hate Donald Trump,” do not mistake what that means.  It does not mean that I am going to throw a temper tantrum about him being in power.  It does not mean that I intend, or want anybody else to use violence, coercion, intimidation or any other illegal, immoral or uncivilized tactic to protest or fight him.  In fact, those are some of the actions that he has supported or encouraged within his own supporters that are part of why I hate the man.  I have no intent to beat a monster by becoming one myself.

It must, as always, be love, truth and justice with which we fight the monster that is Donald Trump.  I do not know if we can defeat the monster that way, at least not in the foreseeable future.  I do know that using anything but love, truth and justice to fight him, fighting him on his own terms with his own tactics will destroy the part of America that is worth fighting to protect.  This country is  too important, and has been too good to me for me to contribute to its further disassociation with reality, practicality and basic civility.

I do not recognize a country shaped by his warped way of thinking as anything approaching the America I love.  It is that love that is most of my fuel.  I hate Donald Trump.  That is a portion of what fuels me these days.  Hate will never be my weapon in this fight though.  Hate cannot build, it can only destroy.  I know that.  My hate is inescapable baggage that I have to reconcile, but it is not what I bring to the negotiation table or the political battlefield.  In other words, my hate is MY problem and I have no right to make it anybody else’s problem any more than they have the right to make their hate America’s problem.

Yes, I hate the man and what he stands for.  But, like the overwhelming majority of people in this country, even most of the (minority of) people who voted for the man, I am better that Donald Trump.  I don’t know you, but the extreme odds are that YOU are better than Donald Trump.  I will not let him push me into acting like the worst of what America has to offer.  Regardless of your political viewpoints, you should not let him either.  When people of all political persuasions are able to have honest and civil discussions and look for actual solutions to our problems, the malevolent garbage that comes from Donald Trump’s mouth, mouthpieces and Twitter client will cease to matter.

Who knows… maybe Donald will discover a level of civility and honesty he has not demonstrated in what passes for his political career.  If he does, as an American, he is welcome to a seat at the table in my book.  Until he does he must be opposed with every fact, every ounce of love and every ounce of civility we can muster.

Donald can have his stupid wall… The rest of us should be building bridges.